Monday, November 9, 2009

A reader named M. Pintar wrote in with a request for this blog's white readers, and I've turned it into this post for both white and non-white readers.

M. is doing a university-level research project on white "race traitors," and she's requesting that the white readers of this blog who self-identify as anti-racists take a brief online survey (link below). I've included the survey's questions below so you can see what you'd be getting into, and so that anyone, white or non-white, can leave responses to any of the questions here at swpd as well, in a comment.

M. explains her project this way:

I'm basically looking into how and why white people are or become anti-racists (i.e. "race traitors"). I'm doing this because I believe (as a white person) that it's important to figure out how and why white allies are created/made so that we can better understand how to continue educating fellow whites in order to fight white privilege and racism more efficiently. I'm especially interested in the role of blogs in the creation of white allies, so there is even a specific question pertaining just to blogs in the questionnaire.

After requesting your gender, sexual orientation and age (all of which, like the questions below, are skippable, if you prefer), the survey asks the questions below. The survey is for white folks, but again, if you're white or non-white and you'd like to respond to any of these in a comment here, please do.

I would especially appreciate answers in the comments here to some of these questions from non-white readers; it would also be great if some of the more quiet white lurkers would come out for the survey itself, but also in a comment to this post.

Do you consider yourself a white anti-racist? If so, why? If not, how do you identify your orientation towards issues of race and racism?

What led you to adopt this identity? (If you have always considered yourself a white anti-racist, why is this?)

Was there one concept (in coming to an anti-racist consciousness) that, when you learned it, gave you a "click" moment? If so, what was it, and what was the "click" moment like? (for example: the concept of white privilege, hegemony, intersectionality, etc.)

Have blogs aided in your development as an anti-racist? If so, how?

Are there any books, movies, music or media in particular that helped you discover or encouraged your exploration of white privilege?

Do you think there is one way in which most white anti-racists primarily are "made"? If so, what is it?

What do you think is the most important thing white anti-racists can do as allies to people of color in the fight against racial oppression?

A: Yes. Hearing constantly "What are you?", "You're smart for a Hispanic", "tribute to your race", and witnessing covert discrimination against blacks in my home city was what ignited the move to anti-racism.

Was there one concept (in coming to an anti-racist consciousness) that, when you learned it, gave you a "click" moment? If so, what was it, and what was the "click" moment like? (for example: the concept of white privilege, hegemony, intersectionality, etc.)Have blogs aided in your development as an anti-racist? If so, how?

A: Book concept? Reading about whiteness. It tied together so many intuitions I felt about society.

What do you think is the most important thing white anti-racists can do as allies to people of color in the fight against racial oppression?

A: Talk to whites who are non-anti racist about whiteness, white privilege, racism, and social stratification.

Q:Was there one concept (in coming to an anti-racist consciousness) that, when you learned it, gave you a "click" moment? If so, what was it, and what was the "click" moment like? (for example: the concept of white privilege, hegemony, intersectionality, etc.)

My answer SHOULD have been:A: My click moment happened when I read Derailing for Dummies http://www.derailingfordummies.com/ . While I didn't think that I'd actually DONE a lot of the behaviours it described, I knew that I'd THOUGHT a lot of the behaviours described.

On one hand, I felt ashamed because I had a clearer understanding of my own racist tendancies. But on the other hand, I felt liberated by knowing how to recognise, avoid, and/or challenge derailment.

I find it interesting that people of color were not included. While many of us would contend that we are not racist-I contend that we are racist in our own right. Becoming anti-racist is not limited to just White people. I had to learn how to become a true anti-racist over the course of my lifetime. I think that people do not realize that Baby Boomers are still working out our racial differences.

I took the survey and wish I'd saved my answers. I don't have enough time this morning to retype them. And I wasn't even half as long-winded as I normally am. Maybe I'll be inspired enough to do it later. But bottom-line was yes I believe I'm a white anti-racist. Blogs have enhanced a deeper understanding of the details of racism, but the concepts presented are certainly not something I'm new to. I was raised in black and Hispanic cultures, mostly black, and I feel like they are the people I most identify with. I think I can use my white privilege to get other whites to see that just because we're not segregating schools and lynching doesn't mean that racism is dead. We still do many oppressive things. As an anti-white racist, it feels like my responsibility to call those things to light for white people who don't hear or fully respect the voices of POC.

* Was there one concept (in coming to an anti-racist consciousness) that, when you learned it, gave you a "click" moment? If so, what was it, and what was the "click" moment like? (for example: the concept of white privilege, hegemony, intersectionality, etc.)

A: It was probably when Tim Wise came to my college to speak. (I know it's ironic, being black and having to be woken up by a white man talking about racism against black people.) However I used to live in a mixed community that (mostly) thought racism was over. Classism can definitely be a shield. Then I went to a mostly white college and experienced how much of a lie this "post-civil-rights era was. Tim Wise came at the perfect time.

* Have blogs aided in your development as an anti-racist? If so, how?Immensely so. Blogs like Angry Asian Man, Angry Black Woman, Field Negro have given my glasses to start see the lies embedded in our society because they deal with daily issues of race. I became less of fighting individual bigots and a lot more about fighting the very thing that keeps this society alive and running the way it does.

* Are there any books, movies, music or media in particular that helped you discover or encouraged your exploration of white privilege?Tim Wise (anything by him), New Perspectives on Racial Identity Development, The Autobiography of Malcolm X, and so many more that I cant think of right now. But in reality, practically any book is about white privilege in the issues and stories it talks about. For example, many teen fiction is a lesson in the middle-class white suburban school system and the assumptions that the author, and therefore the characters, have made about how life works.

* Do you think there is one way in which most white anti-racists primarily are "made"? If so, what is it?

By not sacrificing learning about how they're lives are full of white privilege for the well-being of their feelings

* What do you think is the most important thing white anti-racists can do as allies to people of color in the fight against racial oppression?

Yeah, to shut up and listen to folks of color instead of half listening and then proclaiming "I GET IT NOW, IM DONE".

Allies? Traitors? What is it with Americans and their obsession with the siege mentality? It's always us and them. We're all in this thing together.

And no, I don't mean we all need to have a big hippy hug. I mean that at the end of the day, we're still going to be living in the same place, and the language of division and demonisation isn't going to help.

I find it quite ironic to see such egregiously combative terms in a 'fight' involving the recognition of the subtle divisive semantics of racism.

I feel a need to point out that, for number 3, experiencing transphobia and homophobia might help some people to "get it", but the rates of racism in the LGBT community are basically the same as the general population. This is a very common mistake hetero white people make, thinking that we all just hold hands and skip into the sunset just because we've both been discriminated against.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_LGBT_community

And I agree with msladydeborah, why only white people? I know it's popular on hear to cry "derailment!" over any mention of this here, but POC are racist too. POC don't all stick together just because they face racism (which is actually a pretty racist stereotype), it's important to look at the big picture to see what specifically each group goes through and find the common ground between white racism and POC racism. I feel like I'm constantly being told by white "anti-racists" that it doesn't matter, that I can't feel hurt when I hear a black person say "ch-nk" or see my friends and family discriminated against by even POC because they're latino.

Victoria wrote "anti-white racist," maybe accidentally? Nice phrase, that. White supremacy does train white people to be racists, and even when we try to untrain ourselves, we'll still be racists sometimes. Anti-white ones, hopefully.

Do you consider yourself a white anti-racist?"Anti-racist" is more like something I aspire to than something I am. I mean, "anti-racism" is certainly a guiding principle of my conscious life, but I am capable of saying/doing spectacularly racist things (usually unaware, but that doesn't change anything and in some cases makes it worse). Maybe..."recovering racist"?

What led you to adopt this identity?The realization that racism is more than DWB and shitty schools. I have always had a fundamental belief in the equality and humanity of all people, so as soon as I was aware of (...was made aware of, /sigh...) how deeply racism lies within (U.S.) society, I sort of...didn't have a choice, if that makes sense. I honestly cannot not help fight to end racism and white privilege.

Do you feel that experiencing (an) oppression helped you come to anti-racism?Yes, absolutely, ableism. Most specifically, prejudice against disabled women within the feminist movement. I am disabled, and thus *very* alert (and hurt) by these attitudes...from this viewpoint it is a very, very tiny move to see that white feminists often treat women of color in a similar way.

Was there one concept (in coming to an anti-racist consciousness) that, when you learned it, gave you a "click" moment?Um, this is kind of silly, but I had a click moment with the expression "women and people of color." A teacher used the phrase as shorthand for 'oppressed people,' and without thinking I blurted out something liked, "but what about gay people." The student next to me, a black woman, said, "Yeah, and what about women of color?" And my mind did an oh shiiiit kind of thing. Had I really not been aware of how that expression essentially boils down to [white] women and [men] of color? So for me, it's more about realizing the power of language in dehumanizing people.

What do you think is the most important thing white anti-racists can do as allies to people of color in the fight against racial oppression?1. Shut up and listen.2. Don't assume your knowledge/experience trump that of POC.3. Be aware that our fight is also to give up white privilege, NOT just stop discrimination.4. Don't use sexism to try to draw parallels. Empathy is good, and I do use my experiences as a disabled woman when thinking about racism, but...drawing on sexism/gender issues gives about an 80% chance of fail.5. Shut up and listen.

As a summary of what I hope I've managed to learn recently, here is my answer to number 11 (and to sort of echo Karen):

What do you think is the most important thing white anti-racists can do as allies to people of color in the fight against racial oppression?

I think that we should listen carefully and let people of color talk, without interrupting them, about racism when they choose to do so. I also think that, when we recognize racism happening, it is our absolute obligation to speak up. I'm not sure how to make sure that I don't speak over people when I'm speaking up. This is my most recent challenge.

After growing up the privileged firstborn of a WASP family in a privileged neighborhood, I went to a junior high school where I was in the minority as a gentile. I saw the Jewish kids as 'just like me' but they treated me as a perfectly good friend in school but a social pariah outside of school. Goyim were not invited to coed parties and were mostly not allowed to dance with the Jewish kids even at school dances. I learned a lot about being a second-class citizen during those years; when I went to the bigger school and found myself in the majority once again, I behaved in a less racist way than before, toward members of other religions, races, language groups et.

People of color CAN NOT be racist. At least not in the U.S. Why? Because the ability to be racist means that a person has power to do so. Being a person of color in a white supremacist nation automatically means that, yes they can be prejudiced (duh), but institutional power is needed to be racist.

SoPrejudice= bias or hatredRacist= Prejudice + PowerWhite folks are the only ones with institutional power to be racist. yes there is prejudice among folks of color but again, who has the power?

If we're speaking only of the US, POC aren't utterly powerless, and some groups have much more power. All racism is related and can be often be traced to racism by whites. There absolutely are structures where POC can participate in discrimination of eachother. Not all racism is institutional and racism by POCs can and does work to keep institutional racism in place.

First, it smacks of academics taking a word from the lay lexicon, redefining it, and making the laypeople retroactively incorrect. It thus serves as a way to totally confuse the issue. It's one thing when laypeople pick up on an academic term and misuse it (eg the BMI, what a hack job that turned into), but when academics do it, it's disingenuous.

Second, the substitution of 'prejudice' for 'racism' based on skin colour just doesn't work. Go back to the halloween post where it was being discussed which costumes were racist. Should the Indian and Geisha costumes still be called racist if their wearers were black? The blackface costume be called racist if their wearers were Chinese? It's not the same semantics to replace 'racist' with 'prejudice', particularly given why the costumes were being called racist. In the case of the geisha, one person was calling it racist because it promoted a hypersexualised stereotype of asian women - how does this definition have any relation to the colour of its wearer? So again we're back to it being a confusing definition. It is also somewhat farcical to suggest that the wearer would instead be 'prejudiced' by wearing such a costume.

Another problem is that by defining the single word that features most strongly and most fearfully in the entire discussion as something you cannot ever be by definition, it opens the path to righteousness, which is a muddying, unhelpful emotion. It's always nice to know that you can never be the one that is reviled by the in crowd, by definition.

Yet another problem is what level do you take it to? Imagine a shop with black staff and black customers. The shopkeeper hates Koreans. A Korean comes along and wants to be served and is ignored in favour of the other customers. The black shopkeeper has power over the Korean and abuses it. The shopkeeper has power here, so it's racism. But you say by being black in the US, this can only be prejudice. Change all the blacks to whites and the same story gets told but now racism is correctly able to be used? How does this change the Korean's experience of marginalisation? How does it change the shopkeeper's methods of running the shop?

If you instead argue that racism encompasses the whole system rather than isolated events, we pull even further from the lay definition and it becomes even more fertile ground for confusion. At this point, a socially responsible academic would coin a separate term specifically to avoid misleading laypeople.

Frankly, if you have to take a class at a tertiary educational institution to understand the meaning of a word used in common parlance, then clearly something is wrong somewhere.

I have been more or less under the impression that the "racism = prejudice + power" definition is usually used not to deny that POC from one racial group can be prejudiced against those from another and can also have internalized racism against their own group, but rather to emphasize that there is no such thing as "reverse racism." Or, in other words, white people aren't discriminated against on a systemic level.

Is this incorrect?

On another level, though, @ Cloudy in particular:

While I agree with a lot of what you said as is, I think that maybe you are assigning too much power to the label "racism." If (for example) someone calls an Asian-American 'ch*k', it is discriminatory and awful regardless of whether we say it was "racially prejudiced" or "racist." You have every right to be offended whether the person who said it was a WP or POC; the label "racist" isn't what makes the insult an insult.

I sincerely doubt any white people even read this blog. This blog is largely geared towards people of color who like to read a white person mocking other whites, because they're afraid if they do it themselves they'll appear prejudiced.

I doubt you're really curious about that, but I'll answer anyway. I'd say the two blogs have similar names and they're both about "white people," but that's about it -- in all other ways that I can think of, they're different. So "basically just a rip-off"? I don't think so. Read some earlier posts here. You'll see differences.

**If we're speaking only of the US, POC aren't utterly powerless, and some groups have much more power. All racism is related and can be often be traced to racism by whites. There absolutely are structures where POC can participate in discrimination of eachother. Not all racism is institutional and racism by POCs can and does work to keep institutional racism in place**

I never said that people of color were powerless. I said that Whites have the most power, institutionally.Discrimination and Racism are (or can be) two different things. Discrimination as I have thought of it, is of course something that all people can and do take part in. I basically echo what I said about Prejudice in that you can have prejudice without racism because racism requires power.

What I said before is basically as Willow said:

**"I have been more or less under the impression that the "racism = prejudice + power" definition is usually used not to deny that POC from one racial group can be prejudiced against those from another and can also have internalized racism against their own group, but rather to emphasize that there is no such thing as "reverse racism." Or, in other words, white people aren't discriminated against on a systemic level."***

That is exactly what I was saying.

@EPT:

***First, it smacks of academics taking a word from the lay lexicon, redefining it, and making the laypeople retroactively incorrect.***I am going to take a guess and translate that into "you're one of those people who redefine words differently from the way it's usually used to make people wrong"the problem is that white mainstream has taken the word racism to mean individual acts of prejudice and hatred. which is incorrect. that is not the only definition of the word. so in essence, yes, that is EXACTLY what I am doing.

"Second, the substitution of 'prejudice' for 'racism' based on skin colour just doesn't work. Go back to the halloween post where it was being discussed which costumes were racist. Should the Indian and Geisha costumes still be called racist if their wearers were black? The blackface costume be called racist if their wearers were Chinese? It's not the same semantics to replace 'racist' with 'prejudice', particularly given why the costumes were being called racist...It is also somewhat farcical to suggest that the wearer would instead be 'prejudiced' by wearing such a costume."The thing is that that racism of wearing those kind of costume isnt created by the person of color wearing it but the white institution that thought it up in the first place. Basically a person of color who wears it is an idiot and probably a bigot no doubt however, when people of color do something like that, it knocks both races down. The wearer isnt gaining any racial power by wearing it. in fact they are only helping the system of white supremacy in putting people down to raise up white folks. when white people do it, it lifts white people up and demotes people of color. whoever wears it, it does the same thing. it doesnt raise the person of color who is wearing it up.

Lastly, you dont like using the term racism to define a system of inequality because it makes things CONFUSING!? really? sorry that the world isnt simple. I may have been simplifying a concept but your attempting to simplify racism to the individual level and if racism was just an individual thing, it wouldnt be institutional and therefore we wouldnt be stuck in this white supremacist system right now..

you seem to be a person who like to declare that everyone is racist in order to make white racism seem like not such a big deal.

* Do you consider yourself a white anti-racist? If so, why? If not, how do you identify your orientation towards issues of race and racism?

In some ways, yes, I do consider myself a white anti-racist. I'm half Indian, but my family in India is considered white, and my race is most often read as white. So while I sometimes consider myself ethnically Indian, I still consider myself white for all of the privledge that I get on a regular basis.

* What led you to adopt this identity? (If you have always considered yourself a white anti-racist, why is this?)

I learned to be a white anti-racist while I was also learning to be Indian and white and what that meant. Before I started thinking about whether I was Indian or not (I had never considered my ethnic identity, outside of surveys), I also didn't think that racism still existed. It was only when I started to question my own identity that I started to notice the inequalities of people around me.

When I first started to think about oppression, my queerness actually hurt feelings of anti-racism, because I was so set on queer activism. It took some basic understanding of intersectionality (although I didn't know to call it that then) to start beginning to notice racism.

* Was there one concept (in coming to an anti-racist consciousness) that, when you learned it, gave you a "click" moment? If so, what was it, and what was the "click" moment like? (for example: the concept of white privilege, hegemony, intersectionality, etc.)

My click moment was definately intersectionality. Before I understood that and interlocking systems of oppression, I was likely to try to play the Oppression Olympics. Intersectionality made everything make sense--that it wasn't about competing systems of oppression, but that they all fed off of each other.

* Have blogs aided in your development as an anti-racist? If so, how?

Blogs keep me informed and also active in the anti-racist community, which helps me be aware of what's around me, but also helps me when I'm trying to make someone understand my point and I have an example that I read.

Hi! I'm a "lurker." I have you on my google reader but I don't know whether I've ever commented.

I am interested to hear others' thoughts on the term "ally." I thought about it a couple times in answering the survey.

For the last question (What do you think is the most important thing for white anti-racists to do as allies to people of color) I wrote:

Have conversations with other white people and never ignore the responsibility to speak up. Also, I think it's important to never call yourself an "ally" but always strive to be one.

My other thought, though, is whether the idea of being "an ally to People of Color in the struggle against racism" takes white people OUT of the struggle...If you stand beside PoC in the shared struggle against racism as a system that harms us all- would you call that being an ally or more like a peer?

First, your translation is correct, but it wasn't a personal jab at "you being one of those people" but at the definition of racism you used.

the problem is that white mainstream has taken the word racism to mean individual acts of prejudice and hatred. which is incorrect. that is not the only definition of the word. so in essence, yes, that is EXACTLY what I am doing.

so... white mainstream has perverted the meaning of the word to something incorrect... but then there are multiple definitions? This is what I am saying about it being confusing. What are you saying here, that there are multiple definitions and the one the white mainstream has chosen is none of the correct ones? If that is the case, I strongly advise never to take this argument to a linguist. If I'm incorrect, I can't really make heads or tales of your comment here.

Regarding the halloween costumes, I think it is far more contextual than you're describing. It depends a lot on the individuals and the costumes involved.

Lastly, you dont like using the term racism to define a system of inequality because it makes things CONFUSING!? really? sorry that the world isnt simple.

Nope, that's not what I said. The problem seems to be that people are operating by several versions of the term 'racism'. That's what I'm saying leads to confusion.

you seem to be a person who like to declare that everyone is racist in order to make white racism seem like not such a big deal.

Half right, half wrong. Racism comes from all corners, but I'm not using it to mean that white privilege is not a huge, powerful issue. I see the motives that caused white privilege present in all peoples. Whites just got there first and got a huge, nasty lead. The problem isn't specifically with white people(though whites well and truly hold the lion's share), it's with people, period. That seems to get skipped over a lot in the rhetoric.

I may have been simplifying a concept but your attempting to simplify racism to the individual level and if racism was just an individual thing,

That's not what I'm trying to do.

One thing I loathe is poor definitions. I've seen debates on various things go in circles because people shift definitions repeatedly as the debate goes on. End result: not much but hot air. The word racism here seems to have a floating definition that can be hard to pin down.

Back to my shopkeeper example, why would it be racism on an individual level if the shopkeep was white, but merely bigotry if the shopkeep was black? In both cases it's the shopkeep's prejudices that harm the Korean customer and the shopkeep gets the same lift out of it. Sure, the white shopkeep may gain out of more events elsewhere in life to have an overall advantage - the systemic racism - but when describing the theoretical incident with the Korean, why does it flip between racism and prejudice/bigotry depending on skin colour?

If racism refers only to the system of white privilege, then why do people refer to individual incidents like this as racist?

Does it also mean that a Korean living in a black neighbourhood, where blacks hold the local power, can't be victims of black systemic racism?

It may be a cultural thing. As I mentioned above, Americans seem very big on the bipolar siege mentality, grouping things until there's only two left. Red shirts vs blue shirts, us vs them, for us or against us. Multipolar politics seems a largely foreign concept.

Thanks for responding, by the way. I cut out a little because I was waffling a bit already.

@EPT*****"Back to my shopkeeper example, why would it be racism on an individual level if the shopkeep was white, but merely bigotry if the shopkeep was black? In both cases it's the shopkeep's prejudices that harm the Korean customer and the shopkeep gets the same lift out of it. Sure, the white shopkeep may gain out of more events elsewhere in life to have an overall advantage - the systemic racism - but when describing the theoretical incident with the Korean, why does it flip between racism and prejudice/bigotry depending on skin colour?"*/****

Two things. the first is yes, that is exactly it. And bigotry isnt "merely" anything. on the individual level bigotry and racism feels very much the same. However what they contribute to is very different. Many of us refer to racism as a much bigger dynamic than an individual one because when you pan out and stop looking at individual leaves, you can eventually see the tree that grows them. The individual acts of racism spring from indoctrination. This holds true for the shopkeepers. Again, Asian people arent called "ch-nks" because they are compared to everyone else and made inferior, the word itself came about because they were being compared to WHITE people and found to be inferior. Another person of color doing the same is more of internalized racism. Internalizing the system of white supremacy.

***If racism refers only to the system of white privilege, then why do people refer to individual incidents like this as racist?***

when people talk about "that's racist" "this is racist" that doesnt mean that that is true in the sense of the varied meanings that the word can hold. It is not an easy business especially considering that race is a socially fabricated structure anyway. there is no easy definition to racism. the last thing i want to do is narrow it down. now, in my example of power+prejudice I was more giving a more extensive look at what racism is but in no way was i confining it to just that.

Does it also mean that a Korean living in a black neighbourhood, where blacks hold the local power, can't be victims of black systemic racism?being a majority in a community doesnt mean you have power. yes, I know that many people of color in a neighborhood of another non-white race can be harassed and discriminated against. but think, just what kind of power does that community really have? what do you mean by power?

"It may be a cultural thing. As I mentioned above, Americans seem very big on the bipolar siege mentality, grouping things until there's only two left. Red shirts vs blue shirts, us vs them, for us or against us. Multipolar politics seems a largely foreign concept."

It's always funny when people from the U.S. tell us how racist we are and very rarely investigate their own backyard. Our politics are just broadcasted more. People in Australia for example love downing on the U.S. for our racial politics when the white population treats the indigenous population inhumanly cruel.Thanks for responding, by the way. I cut out a little because I was waffling a bit already.

Colloquial racism - the kind most people mean when they talk about racism. Racially offensive or oppressive acts.

Sociological racism - the kind of racism talked about among anti-racists. A system of privilege benefiting white people.

This system often includes acts of colloquial racism. For example, if enough employers discriminate against black people in their hiring practices, then black people are likely to be poorer than white people. Then they are less likely to be able to afford good educations, making them even less likely to be hired, putting them in a cycle of poverty, leading to violence, etc. and so on. At that point, you have a systemic sociological-racism issue.

I agree that the use of the terms is not always clear and that this trips up a hell of a lot of people. So do a lot of other terms used by anti-racists, like "white supremacy" and so on. I actually was listening to a bunch of speeches today by black religious/community leaders. Louis Farrakhan said something about burning America to the ground, or something of that sort. And I get what he meant. He meant he doesn't like America the way it is, and he wants to change it. Fire = change. But as a soundbyte it makes him sound very hostile.

I think it would be really great if someone found a way to make anti-racism more accessible. However, I also don't think it's a good idea to critique the ideas by critiquing the language (unless language is the subject of discussion to begin with). That leads to a lot of semantic assholery. If you get the language, you can discuss the ideas just fine. If not, you can ask for clarification.

Totally FYI, "racism = prejudice + power" is known as the 'sociological definition of racism.' Sociologists (i.e. academics) usually acknowledge that their use of the term is different that the one that most of the public uses.

Things like this are why I decided to be a *completely* useless academic and study the Middle Ages.

In addition to my own experiences at the hands of racists, feminism and women's studies classes at uni helped bring me around to an anti-racist POV. (That is, until I realized how racist and classist many--most?--white feminists are.)

Was there one concept (in coming to an anti-racist consciousness) that, when you learned it, gave you a "click" moment? If so, what was it, and what was the "click" moment like? (for example: the concept of white privilege, hegemony, intersectionality, etc.)

I really didn't confront much racism until high school, when I realized that in my mostly Hispanic high school that only the white seniors were being counseled about colleges and such.

Have blogs aided in your development as an anti-racist? If so, how? Are there any books, movies, music or media in particular that helped you discover or encouraged your exploration of white privilege?

Do white people really think that blogs and books can help them become anti-racist? Seriously? It's only talk. Put yourself on the front lines; ACT. Then we'll discuss whether or not you are "anti-racist."

Do you think there is one way in which most white anti-racists primarily are "made"? If so, what is it?

I really have trouble believing that there truly are white anti-racists. I think whites talk the talk, but very, very few walk the walk. The most vocal racist "anti-racists" believe that they are anti-racist because they are, for example, married to a minority.

What do you think is the most important thing white anti-racists can do as allies to people of color in the fight against racial oppression?

Speak up. Learn to recognize and then to give up privilege. Don't deny the existence of racism and don't think that it's something that only other white people exhibit. You are racist, even if you are an avowed anti-racist. Learn to fight it, even within yourself.

People in Australia for example love downing on the U.S. for our racial politics when the white population treats the indigenous population inhumanly cruel.

Heh, yes, I am from Australia. And yes, you've bought into the groupthink as well - you've touched a very sore point here because what Americans think of Australian racism is among the most superficial of any groups I have encountered.

The indigenous situation in Australia is deplorable, but it's not just a matter of "white people treat them cruelly" at this point. You make it sound like whites are currently slavemasters or the like here - the main problems facing the indigenous are legacy problems from some horrific stuff perpetrated in the past, not through cruel treatments now. In fact, that's part of the problem - government and white intervention for health and wellbeing is difficult to do today because of the monstrous fuckups of yesteryear. A lot of the tribes are caught between the memory of a culture they can't return to and a modern culture they're justifiably suspicious of. One example of this disconnect was in a township I visited where the houses all had big piles of garbage in their front yards - the rationale went that the more garbage you had, the more stuff you could by, the more money you had, thus the more status you had.

The townships where things are particularly bad are where alcoholism, sexual abuse of children and spousal abuse are rife. When the authorities try to follow up on these things, the communities close ranks (again, understandably - but note that it's not white cruelty behind these actions). I've talked to a social worker who worked with desert townships for ten years before burning out. He said you just get numb to the medical care required for the children's sexual assualts after a while. This isn't demonising their traditional cultures, by the way, but merely showing the level to which their legacy has been fucked up - strong, moral leaders seem to be difficult internally generate within the worst communities, and outside influence simply won't cut it.

So, since you're using it as an example: What's the solution to the problems facing the Aborigines? What magic bullet/s should "white australia" use to improve the quality of life of Aborigines at this juncture? Blame has been accepted, the current government is willing to act... but what acts should be implemented that will be effective?

Or perhaps an easier question: what modern day activities of white people in Australia go to 'inhuman cruelty' that's not done by white people in your own country? What are our excesses as you see them?

Outside of the horrendous problems the Aborigines face (in addition to the more usual systemic racism), it's no worse than anywhere, and better than most places - somewhat surprising given that 28% of us were born in other countries. I've travelled the US and came across some very weird ideas of racism in Australia. In the US, I was told the White Australia Policy was still in effect, something that actually ended decades ago. I was told that Australia was out and out racist because a person had a single bad experience in a rural food shop, but when pressed had zero other examples. I was told that we forced Aborigines onto reservations and force them to live in the desert - while indeed land was stolen you'll find Aborigines in cities and those that live in the outback generally live where they do because it's their traditional land, not because they were corralled there.

I've been to your backyard and travelled solo coast to coast. Have you visited mine before you chatter off the usual suspects?

And after all that, the point I was making about the US wasn't that it was particularly racist, but that it has a love affair with sorting everything into two groups. So often an unnecessarily narrow bipolar choice. Ironically your defense against this was to choose "US" versus "People outside the US".

Rosa: Your last answer makes an excellent point. When white people try to distance themselves from racism- only pointing it out when they see it happening outside them- it creates a roadblock. We need to recognize how racism works in and through us so that we can deal with it and strive to be more effective.

This gets at the big problem I had with the movie Crash. White lefty-types could watch that movie and feel good about themselves for not acting like overt bigots.

"Heh, yes, I am from Australia. And yes, you've bought into the groupthink as well - you've touched a very sore point here because what Americans think of Australian racism is among the most superficial of any groups I have encountered."

It all makes sense now. *sigh* Australia huh? and dont let you fool yourself into thinking that the indigenous issues are the only issues with Australia and it's racial politics. Like for example, a certain show where blackface was used and Harry Connick Jr. was involved. Plus experiences of friends of color who go to Australia and come back with a whole new appreciation for the U.S. because people dont try to act so clueless and yet say incredibly racist things. Not as individuals but as a society.

***"The indigenous situation in Australia is deplorable, but it's not just a matter of "white people treat them cruelly" at this point. You make it sound like whites are currently slavemasters or the like here - the main problems facing the indigenous are legacy problems from some horrific stuff perpetrated in the past, not through cruel treatments now."***

And it's not like slavery is still going on in the U.S. but people are still keeping that status quo.

***"Or perhaps an easier question: what modern day activities of white people in Australia go to 'inhuman cruelty' that's not done by white people in your own country? What are our excesses as you see them?"***

How To Derail a Conversation.

***"And after all that, the point I was making about the US wasn't that it was particularly racist, but that it has a love affair with sorting everything into two groups."****

Mmmm, you may have a point there. But I am not sure that is just a U.S. thing. It seems to be more of a Anglo Saxon or Western influence thing.

***"So often an unnecessarily narrow bipolar choice."

You were the one who was irritated that I complicated the concept of racism. You are also the person who doesnt seem to like complicating terms having to do with racism in general. you polarize racism but you want to put blame on "The U.S." For polarizing issues?

***"Ironically your defense against this was to choose "US" versus "People outside the US"."***

Look man, my point wasnt to say, oh the U.S.A is SOOOOO much better then x,y,z country. What I was trying to do is to kick you off your high horse of "Oh Americans are all divisive and come up with polarizing terms and whatnot." That is always talk for "the U.S. is so racist." Because what you are accusing me of doing is actually you. I wasnt the one who brought in the Country vs. Country debate. YOU were.

Do you consider yourself a white anti-racist? If so, why? If not, how do you identify your orientation towards issues of race and racism?

Yes. And no. I am often very aggressive on the issue. I work with children and take a very strict approach to racism from children. But then again, I meet some racists who aren't even worth talking to. I write them off as human beings. But for me, it's ... as much as we're talking about racism, it's not an issue me being a *white* anti-racist. It's me trying to be a decent human being, is all.

What led you to adopt this identity? (If you have always considered yourself a white anti-racist, why is this?)

I've had racism directed at me: had people think I was stupid because *everyone* from my ethnic background is supposedly stupid. But did that impact on me in any real way? No. The people who said or did those racist things were simply idiots.

Was there one concept (in coming to an anti-racist consciousness) that, when you learned it, gave you a "click" moment? If so, what was it, and what was the "click" moment like? (for example: the concept of white privilege, hegemony, intersectionality, etc.)

The high correlation of class and race.

Have blogs aided in your development as an anti-racist? If so, how?

Not in the slightest.

Are there any books, movies, music or media in particular that helped you discover or encouraged your exploration of white privilege?

Autobiography of Malcolm X, I Write What I Like, Crossing the Line and everything I could get my hands on about Bram Fischer, Max du Preez, Helen Suzman and other whites who fought apartheid.

Do you think there is one way in which most white anti-racists primarily are "made"? If so, what is it?

Most white anti-racists are liberals who want to look good. Most 'anti-racists' are fundamentally racist. I don't know how they come about.

What do you think is the most important thing white anti-racists can do as allies to people of color in the fight against racial oppression?

Let people fight their own battle against oppression. Respect and rights must be taken by the oppressed. Give them the weapons--in the case of apartheid South Africa, this would be critical literacy, 'dangerous' reading material, money, etc--by all means, but ultimately whites can't win the war. Whites are the oppressor in that situation. Whites can't also be the liberator. That said, pulling a Ronnie Kasrils is okay.

I too was a bit suspicious of the language of this "research". I think the questions are definitely applicable to this blog, but (sorry to be a downer), the results of this study aren't going to mean anything (i.e., be valid or reliable), which is unfortunate, because discrimination research is growing, but it focuses mostly on POC reactions to racism not perpetrators of racism.

Have a look at your own prejudices after that comment. That comment means instead of working with the merit (or lack thereof) of what I say, you've written me off, at least partly, because of my heritage.

and dont let you fool yourself into thinking that the indigenous issues are the only issues with Australia and it's racial politics.

I didn't imply that they were. My response was focused around Aborigines because that's where your accusation lay.

because people dont try to act so clueless and yet say incredibly racist things. Not as individuals but as a society.

I remember one experience where I'd just landed in the US and was talking with an Australian friend. I used the word 'negro' and he warned me in no uncertain terms that that is a word not used here. 'Negro' doesn't hold any social baggage for us - I used it because I used to work in a hospital and it's a medically specific term, not offensive in Australia. The word doesn't have historical connotations for us.

I relate this story because I'm trying to illustrate a cultural difference that isn't as bad as it sounds, yet may cause friction.

No doubt your friends did have some racist encounters. Despite your accusations I don't deny racism in my country. But that doesn't mean that you get a free pass on saying things like 'inhuman cruelty' - back up those words.

Like for example, a certain show where blackface was used and Harry Connick Jr. was involved

Yes. A reunion show run by an outdated hack whose actions were reviled in the media here. Does your example include the widespread support for Connick's vocal denunciation? My Serbian friend described the wider response to the blackface sketch as "fucking Australians, they always get worked up and pissy over nothing". That blackface sketch was not typical of our media, any more than Michael Richards' outburst is typical of your media.

Not to say there's no systemic white advantage in the media here, but you're ignoring that that event was an outlier to reinforce your own prejudices.

How To Derail a Conversation.

No, it's not derailment. You said whites treat Aborigines with inhuman cruelty. I'm calling you out on that: give us some current examples that show anything more than the same white privilege seen in other anglo nations. What are some of the 'inhuman cruelties'? I'm asking you to back up your inflammatory words.

You are also the person who doesnt seem to like complicating terms having to do with racism in general. you polarize racism but you want to put blame on "The U.S." For polarizing issues?

How am I polarising racism? My original problem was that you were telling someone that their definition of racism was wrong. It turns out from the ensuing discussion that their definition was correct, it just wasn't the same concept as systemic racism as discussed by sociologists.

The two issues are separate, by the way. "Americans tend to group things into two" is separate to "Mutiple definitions of racism is inherently confusing". One is a social trend I see, the other is a semantics issue.

But I am not sure that is just a U.S. thing. It seems to be more of a Anglo Saxon or Western influence thing.

???

How weird. Is it just reflex to state anglos of being at the root of any noted social trends? The bipolar thing is in comparison to other anglo and western nations. It's not the 'anglo' or 'western' influence causing it.

I wasnt the one who brought in the Country vs. Country debate.Well... I admit, I pointed out a trend in US behaviour. The first country comparison was your inhuman cruelty line, though. :)

"Oh Americans are all divisive and come up with polarizing terms and whatnot." That is always talk for "the U.S. is so racist."

You've not understood what I've been trying to get across. You're not actually listening to what I'm saying, merely stuffing me in a predetermined hole.

I'm not white, but I'd like to comment. I don't quite understand why white people who are against racism are referred to as "race traitors". How in the world are the two related? So, if a man was against sexism, does that make him anti-male? I don't think so. Perhaps M. is using 'race' to mean the socially constructed concept of whiteness as opposed to a group of people commonly referred to as 'white people. But using the term "(race) traitor" sounds misleading and unconstructive.

>What led you to adopt this identity?

I find the whole 'identity as an anti-racist' to be a bit over the top. It's as though 'not being prejudiced' has been raised onto a pedestal as something to be commended, when instead it should be the norm. It is very common for people to have racial prejudices. As humans, we're really good at this. But it is not the 'standard/norm'. The way 'anti-racist' is used here and elsewhere, it's as though being racially prejudiced is the standard, and being anti-racist is above standard. But the way I see it, being against racism should be the standard/norm expected of human beings and therefore deserves no special recognition, and being racially prejudiced is below standard. Unless of course, you're getting put in jail for fighting racism, then, yeah, I'd be all for special recognition. But is this what we are risking as 'anti-racists' in 2009 in Western liberal countries? Most of us are being 'anti-racist' by just talking about race to friends and acquaintances and fighting our own internal prejudices, no? Or am I not understanding what the anti-racists targeted by this survey do as an anti-racist?

To be honest, I had 'BS' and 'WTF' running through my mind when I read how these terms were used in this post.

EPT wrote: "Frankly, if you have to take a class at a tertiary educational institution to understand the meaning of a word used in common parlance, then clearly something is wrong somewhere."

My parents have never read a thing on academic explanations of 'racism' nor blogs such as this, but they have a gut feeling about the difference between 'racism' & 'prejudice' which matches with the sociological definition. For them, there is a clear distinction. Many lay ppl who have experienced both do have an understanding of 'racism' as 'prejudice + power'. Academics merely defined it for us in fancy words.

>"Change all the blacks to whites and the same story gets told but now racism is correctly able to be used? How does this change the Korean's experience of marginalisation?"

Whether the Korean experiences racism or prejudice would depend on a few factors. Are the black shopkeepers discriminating because they think the Korean is an 'FOB'? If so, then it would be experienced as (or feel like) 'racism'. Or do they see the Korean as an assimilated Asian American? If so, it'll be experienced as 'prejudice'. If it it's the latter, the Korean can just go to another store and avoid the unpleasant experience. If it's the former, then he/she would have to leave the country to avoid it. In fact, he/she would have to avoid Western countries altogether to avoid it.

I don't want to get involved with the issues that started the debate between EPT and Karen (us vs them, US vs Oz, etc), but I feel deeply about the specific following issue. EPT said: "What magic bullet/s should "white australia" use to improve the quality of life of Aborigines at this juncture? Blame has been accepted, the current government is willing to act... but what acts should be implemented that will be effective?"

The government, media and individuals in Australia should stop saying all the stuff you said about the Aboriginal community in your comment dated November 11, 2009 2:11 AM. And start listening to what Aborigines actually want. Stop juxtaposing their culture and life with 'modern' Australia. Is it really necessary to talk about how they pile garbage etc, and say 'the rationale went...'? The comment was couched in explanations which seemed as though there is an understanding of how the Aboriginal community is caught between worlds and an acknowledgment of how white settlement disrupted their life. But in all of that is a sense of paternalism. (And I hear this all the time in the Australian media and individuals who talk about this.)

Has anyone ever truly listened to what they want? Perhaps a good first step (or perhaps second step after the apology in 2008) would be to listen to them when they ask Australia to change the date of Australia Day so it doesn't celebrate the start of white settlement which coincides with the start of their current "fucked up" state. I do not see how Aboriginal Australia is supposed to celebrate such a day with 'pride and joy'. And if they can't celebrate Australian nationhood together with everyone else, I do not see how they can feel included. And if the rest of Australia cannot give them this one small token of respect, I cannot see how anything the government does is gonna help. Changing the day isn't gonna change things over night. And yes, it would only be a symbolic gesture. But Australia Day is basically a reflection of how little respect Australian society as a whole have for the Aboriginal community.

On the topic of Aborigines, a few things to remember are that there are wildly different communities. There's a strong community living in the heart of Sydney. One of the things they want is their land back, naturally, but it's not going to happen, is it, not even in the wildest dreams?

The 'magic bullet' comment was really just an attempt to get a detractor to show some knowledge of the situation more than a statistic read in an article somewhere.

The pointy end of the "fixing" of Aboriginal culture by those non-Aboriginals who are actually attempting it is an attempt to reduce the incidence of spousal abuse, substance abuse and sexual abuse - not an attempt to anglicise them. Child sexual abuse is something that is not acceptable in traditional Aboriginal societies, nor in modern Australian society, but it's rife in some of the current day Aboriginal communities. To some degree by saying 'leave them alone' you are saying 'abandon children to rape'. Inflammatory words, yes, but it helps highlight - are you seeing these children as 'people' or as 'people of aboriginal culture'? Why should the government, responsible for the care of all Australian citizens, turn a blind eye to this? Why would anyone consider it's not a big problem if a child is raped if they come from a particular community?

On the Australia Day thing, I thoroughly agree. Australia as a country came into existence on Jan 1 1901, not Jan 26 1788, the date the fleet landed. Problem with that is than News Year's is already a public holiday, so we need to find yet another day relevent to the country to use. :)

And yes, it would only be a symbolic gesture.The current government committed a greater symbolic gesture, as requested by Aborigines, to formally apologise for the 'Stolen Generations', an event that has had a much more profound effect on Aboriginal families than the miscast of Australia Day. It was an event that is much at fault for the disconnect between some communities and their traditional past - children systematically taken from mothers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_generation

Stop juxtaposing their culture and life with 'modern' Australia.

You misunderstand what I was getting at. I was juxtaposing the current culture of some communities against both modern Australian society and traditional cultures. Some communities are doing fine and even have semi-autonomous lawmaking. Other communities are doing it hard and are clearly socially unhealthy in objective terms - see above comments about abuse.

As for "is it necessary to say these things", of course it is. Where you're misreading me is that I'm not saying the people themselves are lesser for doing this - and specifically on this issue, living around trash is unhealthy, so combine this tidbit with that most-often cited statistic about the poor health of Aborigines. It's another catch-22: We're supposed to talk about how the communities are in distress, yet somehow without talking of specific instances. Oh, well, I guess we can all get that 'feelgood' vibe by talking about things in general terms without actually trying to suggest viable solutions or explore the problem.

It comes down to this for me: What touches a nerve is that people see an indigenous culture in distress and assume that the answer is simple. It's not.

>To some degree by saying 'leave them alone' you are saying 'abandon children to rape'.

Oh? When did I say "leave them alone"???????? I did NOT say that. I would NEVER say that we should leave them alone to rape their children. The fact that you could possibly interpreted my comment as such is EXACTLY what I take issue with your attitude towards the problems found in Aboriginal communities. You seem to see the issue as 'go there and do something (our way)' or 'leave them alone'. What I'm saying is, yes, go there and do something, but at the same time, LISTEN to what they are saying. LISTEN to who they are. They are people. NOT a 'social problem'.

>Where you're misreading me is that I'm not saying the people themselves are lesser for doing this

Well, when you said the following, it sounded like you were looking down on them. I don't know how to explain it, but that's what it sounds like. Read between the lines of your own writing. Listen to what you're saying, and I hope you hear the attitude I'm calling you out on. And it's meaningless to say, "Well, that was not my intention." I'm saying that it sounds prejudiced and therefore you should stop saying things like this if that was not your intention: "...the rationale went that the more garbage you had, the more stuff you could by, the more money you had, thus the more status you had."

>What touches a nerve is that people see an indigenous culture in distress and assume that the answer is simple. It's not.

No, it's not simple. Listening isn't simple. It's a very hard thing to do (as various comments/posts on this blog demonstrates). Changing attitudes is not simple. It's very hard to do. But if attitudes don't change (e.g. the way you talk about Aborigines), then it doesn't matter how much people try to help them, most of it will just go down the drain.

It's unfortunate that I haven't quite learnt how to explain why I take issue with that particular comment of yours, but I find the way you talk about the problems in Aboriginal communities to be subtly patronizing. Sometimes we can genuinely care about a group of people, but at the same time have a paternalistic view of them. I guess I'll have to keep reading this blog to learn how to talk about this more clearly.

What I'm saying is, yes, go there and do something, but at the same time, LISTEN to what they are saying. LISTEN to who they are. They are people. NOT a 'social problem'.

I can't help but find it innately ironic that on this blog those who keep saying the line "Listen" don't actually listen to what I am saying. It seems like a mantra you chant at someone you don't agree with.

Interestingly on this point, I've been cautious to specifically refer only to some of the more problematic communities, as not all communities are in strife. Rereading our comments, it seems to me that I'm the one referring to Aborigines as various people with social problems and you're the one painting them all with the same brush, treating them as if they're a single entity.

I would NEVER say that we should leave them alone to rape their children.

I didn't phrase it that way. I meant that it seemed like you were saying non-Aboriginals were to stay out of Aboriginal lives unless invited (which is what the 'listen to them' and 'don't comment on their culture' comments seem to mean), and that sometimes intervention against the wishes of a group is a bit more clear cut.

On the garbage thing: a) I mentioned it was one township, b) I reiterated that it was a cultural disconnect with both modern and traditional societies, and c) it's a health issue, which is one of the specific talking points in the treatment of Aborigines in Australia. Why is it that we're only allowed to talk about the negative aspects of a society if it's a mainstream one?

Don't forget either that my comments were intending to show the social problems as far more complex than the person who was just merely citing a single statistic was suggesting. They weren't intended as a general description of a demographic. How on earth do you discuss social problems without using negative examples? How would you instead have made my point about 'inhuman cruelty' being overly simplistic versus the complex issues involved?

If the conversation was about things involving that specific demographic like pointillism in Aboriginal art, Aboriginal tradesmen, chefs, or footballers, or Americans I've known who've emigrated just to be closer to and learn more of Aboriginal music, you'd not find any negative commentry. Except about football, not really my sport.

You're probably right on the subtly patronising thing, though I'm this way with everything. But pretty much everyone I read on this blog with a strong opinion is subtly (or not so subtly) patronising, yourself included. It seems to go with the territory, not that that's an excuse.

Why is it that we're only allowed to talk about the negative aspects of a society if it's a mainstream one?

It's not a question of "allowed" and "not allowed". The fact is that negative aspects of mainstream society are underemphasised and treated as unavoidable most of the time, wheras the negative aspects of oppressed people's societies are constantly used against them. Blogs like this are intended to redress the balance.

>which is what the 'listen to them' and 'don't comment on their culture' comments seem to mean

This is what I'm taking issue with. I did not say "don't comment on their culture" but you are implying that I did. Why? Why in the world would you think I would use the word 'culture' to refer to 'social issues'? I wouldn't.

>How would you instead have made my point about 'inhuman cruelty' being overly simplistic versus the complex issues involved?

Tell her that she may have seen some reports which support that (e.g. Palm island), but that she's being ignorant by using expressions such as "inhumanly cruel". You don't really need to go on and list a whole bunch of social ills which happen among some of the Aboriginal communities as part of what sounds like a full defense of what (the current benign white) Australia is trying to do to help on a post about surveys...yes, surveys.

Besides, you're the one who started generalizing a whole community: "What is it with Americans and their obsession with the siege mentality?" It's not surprising that you got a reaction to that which generalizes about your community (though I agree that she went over the top with her choice of expression). And then you went into full defense by listing so many ills that the other community (who's voice isn't represented on this blog) does (in a paternalistic sounding way).

I’ve been thinking and perhaps the following might illustrate why I have an issue with your explanation about the Aboriginal situation in Australia. Not sure if it’ll work, but here’s trying. Let’s say that a white Australian had said, “white Americans treat the black population (or indigenous population) inhumanly cruel.” A white American got offended by this and in defense said the following:

“The black situation in the US is deplorable, but it's not just a matter of "white people treat them cruelly" at this point. You make it sound like whites are currently slavemasters or the like here - the main problems facing the blacks are legacy problems from some horrific stuff perpetrated in the past, not through cruel treatments now. In fact, that's part of the problem - government and white intervention for health and wellbeing is difficult to do today because of the monstrous fuckups of yesteryear. A lot of the black communities are caught between the memory of a culture they can't return to and a modern culture they're justifiably suspicious of. One example of this disconnect was in an inner city area I visited where youths were hanging out on the streets in their gangster clothes with knives in their pockets instead of going to school or working, and painting graffiti all over the place - the rationale went that the more knives you had and the more gangster you looked, the more respect you got, thus the more ahead you got in life.

The communities where things are particularly bad are where alcoholism, gangsterism, drug abuse, street killing, and absent fathers (or single mothers) are rife. When the authorities try to follow up on these things, the communities close ranks (again, understandably - but note that it's not white cruelty behind these actions). I've talked to a social worker who worked with inner city communities for ten years before burning out. He said you just get numb to the number of youths who get killed in school fights, on the streets and from drug abuse after awhile. This isn't demonising black culture, by the way, but merely showing the level to which their legacy has been fucked up - strong, moral leaders seem to be difficult internally generate within the worst communities, and outside influence simply won't cut it.

So, since you're using it as an example: What's the solution to the problems facing the black population? What magic bullet/s should "white America" use to improve the quality of life of black people at this juncture? Blame has been accepted, the current government is willing to act... but what acts should be implemented that will be effective?...”

Or you can keep your original comment pretty much intact, but just replace “Aborigine” with “native Americans”. How do you think an African American or native American might feel reading all of that? If they think it’s okay, then fine, perhaps I was making a mountain out of a mole hill. But at the moment I still think it sounds as though you’ve ‘Othered’ Aboriginal Australians. (Btw, I do get that Karen used a possibly inappropriate expression and that engaging in ‘oppression Olympics’ isn’t very productive.)

Tell her that she may have seen some reports which support that (e.g. Palm island), but that she's being ignorant by using expressions such as "inhumanly cruel". You don't really need to go on and list a whole bunch of social ills which happen among some of the Aboriginal communities as part of what sounds like a full defense of what (the current benign white) Australia is trying to do to help

Yeah, I may have gone overboard, but I was trying to illustrate the situation as being more complex than just a statistic that was read somewhere. I'm also not going to pretend that she's read a report in an effort to let her save face: if you say something, you should be able to back it up. She should be able to do that herself.

on a post about surveys...yes, surveys.I don't buy into this thing where you have to talk about the post and only the post. If respondants form a conversation of their own, it doesn't (and didn't) stop others from continuing with the original discussion. It also stifles other interesting conversations like the one we're having now.

A white American got offended by this and in defense said the following:

Yep, I don't have a problem with that, though it probably would have rephrased better with Native Americans than blacks. Your rephrasing just seems to indicate the problems some communities have and why it's difficult for those who come from previously oppressive groups to help. The thing is, when I'm reading your rephrasing, I'm not injecting an expectation that you're intending me to spread out this information and hence classify the entire race by the examples listed.

To take a tangent to try and illustrate what I mean: I think that if you want to formally become a citizen of Australia, you should be required to learn English to a basic conversational level. My friends when they hear this think that I'm coming from the same place as those that say "give up your own culture entirely and become mainstream white". That's what they see the context of those words in. In actuality, I think English should be compulsory for a citizen because it increases communication between new arrivals and existing citizens and helps avoid the creation of enclaves which just lead to more division and misunderstanding further along. I also think that if you have the power to vote, you should at least be able to understand the issues of the whole community and a common language facilitates that. My full position is a little more complex and forgiving of fringe cases, but that's the basic gist of it. But the point of the anecdote is that my friends automatically associate my words with different motives and some of them don't stop to listen to them for what they are. Sometimes attempting to talk further to explain more fully just gets flat stonewalled.

Even though you may disagree with my reasoning, you can see it's not the same reasoning that people usually assume behind the "immigrants should speak English" argument.

How do you think an African American or native American might feel reading all of that?

Depends on the person. I imagine someone like the guy who does stuffblackpeoplehate might agree with it. I imagine that there are others who hate it for the same reasons you do.

Just the same way as I took issue with the 'inhuman cruelty' line but there are other whites who'll join in.

Besides, you're the one who started generalizing a whole community: "What is it with Americans and their obsession with the siege mentality?"Yes, and I admitted it earlier, too. It's an observation that I think would be very valuable to the debate, though probably it should be put a little more politely. But note that I wasn't making a judgment on race with this comment :)

Gotcha EPT. I don't think I agree with everything still, but good chat ;)

And back to the post - I previously had a problem with the term 'anti-racist', but after reading about the "punk anti-immigrant protesters" post, I'm starting to think anti-racist means someone who into anti-racist activism. If that's what it's about, then okay, the term makes some sense.

Being anti-racist does not mean that a person is a race traitor--that, in effect is a racist statement.

I consider myself to be anti-racist and have no problems calling myself a white man.

So called anti racists will often use the "your a tribute to your race argument as a signal that someone is a racist...not surprisingly those same anti-racists are more than happy to paint all white people with the brush of racism.